[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4298-4299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        WORKING WITH OUR ALLIES

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I wish to spend a few minutes talking 
about our allies across the globe, and I am doing so because they are 
important to our national security. That seems to be an obvious 
statement, but our allies seem to be getting a bit of a bipartisan 
short shrift of late. I come to the floor of the Senate to talk about 
how important they are to our Nation, to our citizens. It is 
bipartisan, as I mentioned.
  As many of us have read, on the campaign trail Presidential candidate 
Donald Trump has been critical of NATO, has been critical of our Asia-
Pacific allies. Meanwhile--and in many ways it hasn't gotten the news 
it deserves because it is a sitting President--in a recent article in 
The Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg entitled ``The Obama Doctrine,'' 
President Obama himself is dismissive of many U.S. allies around the 
world.
  I thought it was important to talk a little bit about our allies and 
how important they are to U.S. security and to expanding American 
influence globally.
  Let's start with Mr. Trump. He has called NATO--which, by the way, 
happens to be one of the most successful alliances in the history of 
the world--an alliance that is ``obsolete'' and ``too expensive.'' 
About the members of the 28-nation alliance, he said: ``Either they pay 
up, including for past deficiencies, or they have to get out. And if it 
breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO.'' Oh, well. So much for the world's 
most successful alliance.
  However, contrary to public perception, the United States does not 
pay for a majority of NATO's spending. We pay about 22 percent of 
NATO's common-funded budgets and programs for all of NATO--about 22 
percent.
  The Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, was here last week, 
and he informed me and many of my colleagues on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee that most NATO countries have stopped their decline 
in defense spending and have recommitted to NATO's goal of 2 percent of 
their GDP toward defense spending. That is important--working on the 
finances, reversing this trend. But here is the key point: It is not 
just about finances. Over 1,000 non-U.S. NATO troops have been killed 
in action in Afghanistan coming to our defense after 9/11, going after 
the terrorists who killed over 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Over 1,000 of 
our NATO allies have paid the ultimate price. You can't put a price tag 
on that. Thousands more have been wounded. Some sacrifices can't be 
measured in just dollars.
  Based on his comments, Mr. Trump also does not seem to fully 
comprehend how the presence of American troops in the Asia-Pacific has 
been the linchpin of security and prosperity in the region for more 
than 70 years. Today our allies in the Asia-Pacific are substantially 
increasing their financial and military commitments in that region. Let 
me give a few examples.
  Under Prime Minister Abe's leadership, Japan has amended its 
Constitution to do much more militarily in terms of being able to work 
with us and even defend U.S. forces in the region. As we are looking to 
rebalance and reposition U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific over the next 
several years, the estimates from Pacific Command are that is going to 
cost about $37 billion, repositioning U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific. 
It is a very important part of our strategy. It is a strategy, by the 
way, that--the President talks about the rebalance, which I think is 
smart, in the Asia-Pacific. Of that $37 billion for our forces and the 
military construction that is going to take place with this rebalance, 
about $30 billion will be paid by Japan and Korea. That is certainly 
paying their way.
  Let me give a couple of examples. Camp Humphreys--that is an Army 
base in Korea--we are moving a lot of forces there, doing a lot of 
military construction there, and it is going to cost about $11 billion. 
Ninety-one percent of that is going to be paid by Korea--for U.S. 
military forces.
  In Guam--U.S. territory where we are repositioning marines and other 
critical military assets in the Asia-Pacific--Japan is paying $3 
billion for

[[Page 4299]]

that repositioning on U.S. territory. It is the first time ever. A 
foreign country is paying for military construction on our territory.
  The bottom line is that there is no doubt that our allies around the 
world, particularly in Europe, need to do more in terms of defense 
spending. Many people have spoken on this. Former Secretary Gates--very 
well respected--raises this in his recent bio. But it is simply 
erroneous to suggest that America would be better off without NATO or 
without our Asia-Pacific allies and alliances. Yes, they need to spend 
more, but there is a big difference saying we don't need our allies.
  Let me say that we should all understand that Mr. Trump, Donald 
Trump--he is a candidate. He is certainly not an expert on national 
security affairs. And his views certainly reflect the frustrations that 
many Americans and many Members of Congress have about allies who are 
not spending as much on defense. Of course we know this often happens 
during elections. We have seen that. It is an outgrowth of 
frustrations.
  But what is unprecedented is for a sitting President to be dismissive 
and even disdainful of our most important allies in a publication read 
by millions. To do so is not only unpresidential, it threatens to 
undermine ongoing U.S. national security interests.
  I want to talk a little bit about The Atlantic article that I 
mentioned earlier, written by Jeffrey Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg, who had 
enormous access to the President for I think well over a year--traveled 
with him all over on Air Force One, had numerous interviews--in his 
article, he takes us on a trip across the globe through the eyes of 
President Obama. I would encourage all of my colleagues in this body to 
read that article.
  As I mentioned, Mr. Goldberg has significant access to the President, 
but the tour across the world leaves us no doubt that the President not 
only views himself as the smartest man in the room, he is the smartest 
man in the world. In Mr. Goldberg's words, President Obama ``has found 
world leadership wanting: global partners who often lack the vision and 
the will to spend political capital in pursuit of broad, progressive 
goals, and adversaries who are not, in his mind, as rational as he 
is.''
  The President assesses the very strengths and weaknesses of our 
allies. In his view, only German Chancellor Angela Merkel measures up. 
There is a whole list of leaders from countries that are allies of the 
United States and are mentioned in this article. The President calls 
the President of a critical NATO country a ``failure,'' and he is 
openly disapproving of the leadership role of Britain and France and 
openly complaining that neither did their part with regard to Libya, 
where the Obama administration famously, or infamously, announced it 
was leading from behind.
  The jabs and the stories in the Goldberg piece at other leaders, such 
as the leaders of Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, are gratuitous. 
These might be appropriate for later in the President's memoirs, as he 
is writing his memoirs talking about world leaders and where they 
measure up and where they are weak, but not while he is still the 
President. He still has work to do for our country.
  The President even trains his fire on American leaders, members of 
the foreign policy establishment, and even GEN Lloyd Austin, the well-
respected and recently retired commander of U.S. Central Command. There 
is a big section in there about how the President viewed Ronald 
Reagan's leadership and shortcomings in foreign affairs. Everybody 
seems to be lacking in the President's eyes.
  It is not just individuals, it is the way we, as a Nation, supposedly 
conduct our foreign policy. By the President's own account, he has been 
a bulwark against American hubris, self-righteousness--his words--in 
foreign affairs. Let me repeat that. His view is that he has been a 
bulwark against our hubris and our self-righteousness in foreign 
affairs.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, whether it is Alaska or West 
Virginia, most Americans understand another more historically accurate 
narrative of our role in foreign affairs throughout the world. It is 
not one of hubris, but one of sacrifice, commitment, and courage in 
defending freedom for hundreds of millions of people across the globe. 
That has been the role of the United States, and for decades, 
especially since World War II, there has been a bipartisan, long-term 
effort by truly some of the smartest people in American foreign policy 
who were ``present at the creation,'' and beyond--as Dean Acheson said 
in his autobiography--into deepening our relationship with other 
countries and, as part of doing that, establishing the forward presence 
of U.S. military power around the world. These were some of America's 
best minds--Marshall, Acheson, George Shultz.
  Why did they do this? Because forging these alliances ultimately not 
only advances the goal of freedom and a more peaceful and prosperous 
world, but it also helps ensure that American influence and power 
remain preeminent and, most importantly, that our citizens remain safe.
  In assessing our significant international challenges right now, one 
central truth stands out: Many of our enemies and potential adversaries 
and rivals are ally poor while the United States is ally rich. Think of 
countries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and terrorist groups 
like ISIS. They have very few allies. Very few other countries are 
running to them right now. Then think about our allies throughout the 
world. It is time to recognize and double down on this uniquely 
American comparative advantage in foreign affairs. We are ally rich. 
Our rivals are ally poor. We need to take advantage of it. Yet the 
Obama administration seems to have ignored it.
  Indeed, Secretary of State John Kerry has spent more time wooing 
adversaries like Iran and Russia than doing the hard work of deepening 
the bonds of trust with our allies. Coupled with the President's 
remarks in the Atlantic, his missives directed at friends make it seem 
as if they are actually repelling allies, not working with them and 
building up trust. This, of course, is a mistake.
  Like many in this body, I have had the opportunity to serve my 
country in different capacities, trying to work to advance the national 
security of our Nation. I have had the opportunity to see the positive 
results of the carefully woven fabric of decades of bipartisan American 
diplomacy, military engagement, and leadership throughout the world. 
Without American leaders who understand history and the important role 
our allies play in America's security and prosperity, the fabric of our 
alliances put together over decades threatens to unravel. If that 
happens, the world is going to become a much more dangerous place.
  Our Founding Fathers provided the Senate with significant 
responsibility in terms of foreign affairs, and I am hopeful that every 
Member of this body will redouble their efforts to reach out and to 
work with our allies so we don't continue this trend where leaders 
currently in the White House, or perhaps potential occupants of the 
White House, view our allies as a burden when in reality they are a key 
component of our security and prosperity, and we need to continue to 
work with them.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________